Laserfiche WebLink
Attorney Henderson spoke to the issues of his client's investment (over a half (1/z) a <br />million dollars), and the property rights of affected parties, which are all important to pursue, but <br />must be pursued properly and in accordance with the ordinance. To provide a better <br />understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding the jurisdictional issues, Attorney <br />Henderson, through a PowerPoint presentation, addressed the section of the Code that deals with <br />appeal requirements and Public Notice. He also presented a timeline of activities to show the <br />important dates involved in this matter, including the date the appeal period began to run. <br />He presented six (6) questions and answers to the Board for consideration and response, <br />and claimed there were multiple defects in the Metz appeal: <br />(1) What are the Metz's appealing? <br />(Answer: John McCoy's administrative letter decision dated July 10, 2006) <br />(2) When did the Metz's receive the actual notice of the 7/10/06 McCoy letter? <br />(Answer: August 15, 2006) <br />(3) What are the requirements of the IRC Code for filing a timely and proper appeal? <br />(Answer: It requires a filing and that it be filed with the Planning Division) <br />(4) Can the O'Haire letter dated 9/5/06 be considered a timely and proper appeal? <br />(Answer: No, it cannot; it was filed late, it went to the wrong office; was not on a proper <br />form, and no fee was included) <br />(5) Was the formal appeal filed on 11/1/06 a timely appeal? <br />(He did not read Question No. 5 because he thought he covered it `pretty good" under <br />Item 4) <br />April 24, 2008 5 <br />Special Call Meeting (The Source) <br />